> Joshua Megerman wrote:
>> On Saturday 23 February 2008 01:55:14 pm Nick Bright wrote:
>>> While the qmail sources are available, it is not GPL. It's my
>>> understanding that the way qmail is licensed specifically forbids
>> Um, no. As the original poster stated qmail is now in the public
>> which means there is not only no restrictions to its distribution,
>> not even any license anymore.
> Well, that is excellent. I was not aware that it had been placed into
> the public domain.
> Perhaps now someone could get a project together with some traction to
> integrate all of the best patches into qmail and make a technologically
> recent package that doesn't have to have 15 patches applied to get
> anything resembling a recent feature set.
Are you aware of the netqmail project or Bill Shupp's qmail toaster project?
Easily googled if you weren't.
> I for one would love to see inter7 take the lead on such a project, as
> they have a proven track record and as far as I can tell, know qmail
> quite well.
>> And please try not to top-post :)
> I'll never understand why people don't like top posting. I find it
> easier to read, but lets not get OT on this; I'm sure it's been argued
> about before.